Why you want upsampling and upconversion in a server and why it sounds way better!


One of Roon's and Jrivers best advantages is the ability to digitally reprocess your data. 

With an appropriate server you can take for example a 16 bit 44k Tidal stream and reprocess that data stream to DSD or to reprocess to 24bit 192k, 384k, even up to 768k.

In our tests almost accross the board most listeners perfer DSD or high res PCM data streams.

The counter arguement is that if you start with 16 bit 44k sample you can't do any better as that  is the source.

Going through Facebook we got a post that showed the Lumiere brothers first film shot in 1894 with a steam locomotive. 

The second video showed the same Lumiere video reprocessed using AI to create a 4k video stream out of the same video footage. 

The first video is the native source the second shows the reprocessed video the differences aren't subtitle even if you reprocess the native video you are able to extract a signifigantly higher quality image. 

We have been saying this for years even if you don't start out with a true high res source through the magic of computer reprocessing you can create a pseudo high res data packet that still sound far better than ifs original form.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/someone-used-neural-networks-to-upscale-a-famous-1896-video-to-4k-quality/

Watch the video and see what you think. Sure it is always best to start with a true high resolution image but in the case of not having a true high resolution music fille the ability to use digital reprocessing can create a signal that will sound far better providing that your dac and server are up to the task.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ



 
128x128audiotroy

Showing 1 response by audiophilenm

I have to agree with many of you. At first listen, upsampling seems to make things sound much better, smoother, more analog and natural. But continued critical listening reveals issues of unnatural, fatiguing sound that eventually has me running back to a native bitrate. Ideally, I've found that a 24/96 native recording played back without up- or down-sampling seems to be the sweet spot. But I listen to thousands of well-recorded 16/24 CD's ripped to my server that sound so great I never want for more. A well-recorded Redbook CD is a wonder to hear.

That being said, in many cases streaming music sources can sound better upsasmpled. And mp3 files, at any bitrate, sound much better upsampled to at least 24/96. With good upsampling mp3 can almost sound listenable.

My impressions of this are not limited by equipment, or source materials. I've tried this experiment on the highest of high-end DAC's, servers, CD transports, etc. in world-class reference-quality systems, with every bitrate and quality of recording, and the issues always eventually reveal themselves.

On my setup I listen to everything through my server at native bitrate, with NO digital manipulation (delays, EQ, balance controls, etc.). Over thousands of hours of listening I've come to the conclusion that I want to hear what was recorded, as it was recorded, warts and all. I don't want a polished turd ...I'd rather know it's a turd and learn to live with that. In my collection I have many great perfomances that were recorded horribly. I'm OK with that, because my great performances that were recorded well sound like heaven.

The more resolution your room and system provide, the easier it is to hear these differences. In an acoustically isolated high-end system the fatigue of upsampling is impossible to ignore. At least that's been my experience...